Record loss of Arctic ice may trigger extreme weather

September 17, 2012
by Monte Morin

Arctic sea ice is shrinking at a rate much faster than scientists ever predicted and its collapse, due to global warming, may well cause extreme weather this winter in North America and Europe, according to climate scientists.

Last month, researchers announced that Arctic sea ice had dwindled to the smallest size ever observed by man, covering almost half the area it did 30 years ago, when satellites and submarines first began measuring it.

While the loss of summer sea ice is likely to open up new shipping lanes and may connect the West Coast of the United States to the Far East via a trans-polar route, researchers say it will also affect weather patterns and Arctic wildlife.

"It's probably going to be a very interesting winter," climate scientist Jennifer Francis said Wednesday in a teleconference with reporters. Francis, a researcher at the Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences at Rutgers University, has argued that shrinking Arctic ice can be tied to such recent weather events as prolonged cold spells in Europe, heavy snows in the Northeastern U.S. and Alaska, and heat waves in Russia.

Decades ago, Arctic ice covered about 6 million square miles of sea in the winter, and would shrink to about 3 million square miles in the summer. The rate of summer melt increased enormously around 2005, however, and today scientists say Arctic ice covers about 1 million square miles.

"This is a very small amount of ice indeed," said Peter Wadhams, an ocean physics professor at the University of Cambridge. Wadhams said that while Arctic ice used to build up over many years, new ice formations are now breaking up and melting each summer.

"I think that what we can expect in the next few years is further collapse leading to an ice-free Arctic in summer," Wadhams said. "It really is a dramatic change."

Previously, scientists had predicted that it would take 30 or 40 more years before the Arctic was ice-free in the summer.

The loss of Arctic ice has several effects. Ice reflects heat and solar energy back into space. With less ice cover, that heat energy is instead absorbed by the ocean, which warms and melts more ice. Currently, the Arctic region is the fastest-warming region on the planet, and the change in temperature will probably influence weather patterns here and in Europe, according to Francis.

The heating and cooling of Arctic seawater has been affecting the jet stream - the river of air that flows from west to east high above the Earth's surface - and has slowed it down, Francis said. The jet stream controls the formation and movement of storm systems, so when its movement slows, weather conditions persist for longer periods of time over the same area. They get "stuck."

"If you're in a nice dry pattern with sunny skies, it's great if it lasts for a few days. But If it lasts for a few weeks, well then you're starting to talk about a drought," Francis said. "If you have a rainy pattern and it hangs around for a long time, then that becomes a situation that could lead to flooding."

Arctic warming will influence weather to the south during the late fall and winter. While Francis said it would probably result in severe weather this winter, it was impossible to predict when and where those events would occur.

Record ice melts this year and in 2007 have alarmed many scientists, mostly because they thought it would take many more years to reach this state.

James Overland, an oceanographer with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said forecasts failed to account for the physics of lost solar energy reflection and warming ocean water.

"These are really surprises to most scientists," Overland said. "In looking at climate models that are used to look forward, they've tended to say the Arctic may be ice-free by 2040 or 2050. It looks like things are happening a lot faster, and it's because not all of the physics that we're seeing today were well-handled in these climate models."

Overland, who is also an associate professor at the University of Washington's Department of Atmospheric Sciences, said these effects are known as "Arctic amplification" and would carry heavy consequences for wildlife like polar bears and walruses by reducing their habitat.

Wednesday's telephone news conference was hosted by Climate Nexus, a New York-based nonprofit that seeks to publicize the effects of climate change.

Related Stories

Scientists at NSIDC announced that March 2006 shows the lowest Arctic winter sea ice extent since the beginning of the satellite record in 1979 (see Figures 1 and 2). Sea ice extent, or the area of ocean that is covered by ...

Arctic sea ice has been declining over the past several decades as global climate has warmed. In fact, sea ice has declined more quickly than many models predicted, indicating that climate models may not be correctly representing ...

(PhysOrg.com) -- A nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in the summer may happen three times sooner than scientists have estimated. New research says the Arctic might lose most of its ice cover in summer in as few as 30 years instead ...

In the Arctic Ocean, the blanket of permanent sea ice is being progressively replaced by a transient winter cover. In recent years the extent of the northern ocean's ice cover has declined. The summer melt season is starting ...

Recommended for you

Five million years ago, the Colorado River met the Gulf of California near the present-day desert town of Blythe, California. The evidence, say University of Oregon geologists, is in the sedimentary rocks exposed at the edges ...

Pressure, temperature and fluid composition play an important role in the amount of metals and other chemicals found in wastewaters from hydraulically fractured gas reservoirs, according to Penn State researchers.

Pioneering work being carried out in a cave in New Mexico by researchers at McMaster University and The University of Akron, Ohio, is changing the understanding of how antibiotic resistance may have emerged and how doctors ...

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers with the European Commission's Joint Research Centre and Google Switzerland has combined historical data with modern mapping engines to produce high-resolution maps of the world's surface ...

The ice sheet covering Greenland is four times bigger than California—and holds enough water to raise global sea-level more than twenty feet if most of it were to melt. Today, sea levels are rising and the melting of Greenland ...

150 comments

"These are really surprises to most scientists," Overland said. "In looking at climate models that are used to look forward, they've tended to say the Arctic may be ice-free by 2040 or 2050. It looks like things are happening a lot faster, and it's because not all of the physics that we're seeing today were well-handled in these climate models."

If this statement is true, I can understand why people choose to ignore scientists and doubt models. What scientist models diminishing arctic ice and fails to account for these as variables?

"James Overland, an oceanographer with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said forecasts failed to account for the physics of lost solar energy reflection and warming ocean water."

I believe that an ice free arctic summer was likely predicted by at least 2 models before 2025 and it wasn't reported in mainstream media due to the extreme nature of such a forecast, or it was shared at certain levels but has never been publicized.

All countries around the arctic have been mandating expansion (scientific/military/resource extraction) in the region for several years. This wouldn't be taking place if governments were told something other than an earlier than publicized/expected loss of the sea ice.

I think that the attention to the number of square mile is a deception in itself. The bigger issue is the volumetric loss is much greater and of more significance. While the surface area has declined to 1/6th or approx 17 of the 2005 level, volumetric has to be at least twice as great. The idea that the ice cap will last until 2025 seems to me optimistic. It seems obvious, that the acceleration of the melt off is more determined by volumetric decline than mere surface area. And furthermore, to say that scientists are not taking the albedo effect into account is ridiculous. That is elementary geology and glaciology. Global Climate Change is here and accelerating. Our children and grand children will suffer greatly and will curse our generation. And for Rubberman, the scientists who are "failing" to account for all the variables, might be working for the gov'ts referred to in your second offering.

Jcyoda: I don't really doubt that any scientist involved in this research would miss something this glaringly obvious and you are correct about the volume aspect and mass loss, that is the reason for my confusion and feeling that something isn't above board with Overlands remarks. I too believe that the arctic ocean will be ice free in the summer well before 2025, I actually have a bet with one of the skeptics on this site that it will be by 2020.

I think it is a little strange that there was no mention of the effects of the increase in evaporation resulting from both the increse in sea temperature and increase in open water. It seems to me that pumping a lot more moisture into the atmosphere would have a pretty significant effect on weather patterns, air mass temperatures, and storm precip.

"This is a very small amount of ice indeed," said Peter Wadhams, an ocean physics professor at the University of Cambridge. Wadhams said that while Arctic ice used to build up over many years, new ice formations are now breaking up and melting each summer. "I think that what we can expect in the next few years is further collapse leading to an ice-free Arctic in summer," Wadhams said. "It really is a dramatic change."

I was just reading this story earlier...it fails to provide a citation for the paper that the prediction initially appears in, but Wadham says ice-free Arctic Summer(August thru September) by 2016:

While the loss of summer sea ice is likely to open up new shipping lanes and may connect the West Coast of the United States to the Far East via a trans-polar route, researchers say it will also affect weather patterns and Arctic wildlife.

Actually, if this was changed to "Eastern Europe", instead of the Far East, it would make more sense. I'm sure it's just a slip up, but still --made me laugh.

I believe that an ice free arctic summer was likely predicted by at least 2 models before 2025 and it wasn't reported in mainstream media due to the extreme nature of such a forecast, or it was shared at certain levels but has never been publicized.

Although the sea ice extent is low, we're nowhere near having an ice free Arctic summer.

And much of the blame for this year's low extent is due to an unusual Arctic cyclone wich prematurely broke up the ice.

"This rapid pace of ice loss in 2012 was ...likely caused in part by the strong cyclone that entered the region earlier in the month and helped to break up the ice."

And:

"At the end of August, ice remained in the Western Parry Channel, and neither the northern or southern routes of the Northwest Passage were open."

I don't really doubt that any scientist involved in this research would miss something this glaringly obvious and you are correct about the volume aspect and mass loss, that is the reason for my confusion and feeling that something isn't above board with Overlands remarks. I too believe that the arctic ocean will be ice free in the summer well before 2025, I actually have a bet with one of the skeptics on this site that it will be by 2020.

This it too funny. Now you doubt the scientists themselves when they explain why their predictions have been erroneous. So is it your contention that any science which belies your belief system is now suspect, no matter its source?

This year (in the context of the current global warming stall) isn't even that particularly warm. So far, it's only the 9th warmest.

"The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January–August 2012 was the ninth warmest such period on record,"

While the loss of summer sea ice is likely to open up new shipping lanes and may connect the West Coast of the United States to the Far East via a trans-polar route, researchers say it will also affect weather patterns and Arctic wildlife.

Actually, if this was changed to "Eastern Europe", instead of the Far East, it would make more sense. I'm sure it's just a slip up, but still --made me laugh.

"Eastern Europe?" I think the "Eastern Coast of the United States" would make more sense.

Re Northwest Passage Conditions see http://phys.org/n...way.html alsoNSIDC 5 Sept 2012 - ..."However, even after the cyclone had dissipated, ice loss continued at a rate of 77,800 square kilometers (30,000 square miles) per day."NSIDC 17 Aug 2012 - "Stephen Howell, Tom Agnew, and Trudy Wohlleben from Environment Canada report that sea ice conditions in the Northwest Passage are very light. Ice is still present at the mouth of the M'Clure Strait, in central Viscount-Melville Sound, and in Larsen Sound, as of early August. As a result, neither the northern route (Western Parry Channel) nor the southern route (Amundsen's Passage) through the Northwest Passage are completely clear of ice. Sea ice area within the northern route is currently well below the 1968 to 2000 average."

Unlike religions, science does not spring fully-grown from someone's forehead. You make a model using elements that appear to be relevant. If the model works (makes accurate predictions), fine. If it doesn't work, you modify it. Repeat until you have something that does work. Sometimes, a person comes alone that has a different take on the problem, that works much better. So science ditches epicycles and Newton's Laws take over. Until the next level of instrumentation provides data that doesn't fit.

The article is about arctic sea ice kids. Antarctica isn't mentioned because it doesn't affect winter weather in the Northern hemisphere directly the way the arctic does. From a climate standpoint Antarctica is very important and let's hope the continent keeps it's ice as long as possible. You two want to discuss a chinese food menu while the rest of us are ordering pizza.

"If you use airport thermometers of proof of global warming it is no surprise that the temperature can be .62C above the 20th century average."

What an interesting mind we look into. The arctic is melting - because they measure the temperature with thermometers that are stationed at all of the airports up there - and the runways absorb too much heat and melt the stupid ice sheets. Got it?

Wonder why? It was a previously very rare event in the height of an Arctic summer.

If it happened in previous years, the ice wouldn't even have noticed, but this year it was so thin that it got pushed around a lot more.In any case, all indications are that the ice was so thin that it was going to melt anyway irrespective of the storm.

All the other deniers have bravely run away from arguing about Arctic Sea Ice decline, so I would just concede if you want to retain any credibility at all, (if that is in the remotest bit important to you).

Area affects albedo and hence energy absorption, but volume is what counts as this contains the thermal inertia to clamp the temperature around freezing during the summer. Once that goes, a whole new world of hurt appears.

The area or extent of 1 or 10 drops of oil in a bucket looks the same, even if volume is 10x. The same with ice.Sea ice extent may look normal in winter but it is much thinner and is progressively melting more than refreezing.

It *will* be ice free in the summer in our lifetimes, and there *will* be consequences.

Sure things are cyclical - continued AGW denial and concomitant climate and methane clathrate destabilization and resulting wars will decimate our descendants for the next 10,000 years until humanity learns to live without oil. It will have no choice when it runs out.

Are AGW deniers aiming to be the richest corpses in the cemetery?You want that on your headstone?

So the rationalization of the day is 'don't worry about the sea ice extent - it is just low this year because of a freak cyclone - no long term pattern going on here' Talk about confirmation bias. Talk about unwillingness to see the wood for the trees. Look at the long term data trend graph on this page. http://thinkprogr...ontinue/

1979 - 16 million cubic kilometers. 2012 - 3.6 cubic kilometers. Oh - that's right - it's just the cylcone of 2012 - everything will be back to normal next year.

The pattern of ice loss has been a new record low that is a good fraction of a million square kilometers lower than the previous few years, followed by 4 or 5 years of reasonably constant minim extents.

If that pattern is continued then there is enough ice to sustain 4 more cycles of around 5 years. So 20 years by that measure before Minimum Arctic sea ice area = 0.

In reality the minimum will be seen before then because melted ice produces more rapid melting due to albedo changes.

"This rapid pace of ice loss in 2012 was ...likely caused in part by the strong cyclone that entered the region earlier in the month and helped to break up the ice." - UbVonTard

Quick math says that the difference (rounded down) between the largest extent for an arctic minimum and today is about 4.6 million kilometres. You have an increase at the other pole of 1.7 million on the max extent...yeah, 2.9 million sq KM is barely enough to keep a drink cold...

Ironically you have a point Parky, but not in the way you think. It was not an anomalous event isolated from its unusual trigger conditions. This near record low (central pressure around 964mb) in the central Arctic was given extra energy by much warmer temperatures than normal in the east Siberian Seas ( where the Low was spawned ). An example of a positive feedback effect accelerating ice loss and a sign of the future.

Ironically you have a point Parky, but not in the way you think. It was not an anomalous event isolated from its unusual trigger conditions. This near record low (central pressure around 964mb) in the central Arctic was given extra energy by much warmer temperatures than normal in the east Siberian Seas ( where the Low was spawned ). An example of a positive feedback effect accelerating ice loss and a sign of the future.

If you say so. It has only happened 8 times in August in 34 years. Which makes it not too unusual.

"The Arctic low ice was caused by the cyclone." Wonder what happened last year - and the year before that....

"And record ice in the Antarctic is still ignored"

Parker never gives up - always showing his/her level of ignorance of the topic. Here is a pretty good summary of why the antarctic is not showing the same level of response to climate change as the arctic. http://news.yahoo...186.html

To get a good snap shot of the stupidity of claiming that the antarctic situation somehow cancels out the arctic - take a look at this web site http://nsidc.org/...e_index/ - and in the little graphic on the right hand side of the page - toggle between Arctic monthly, and Antarctic monthly - you can see how the Arctic ice has been on a steep down trend over the past 30 yrs - and the Antarctic has been pretty much flat. Jeeshhhhh...

"The AMO." I get so tired of the double standards of the anti science gang around here. How is it that climate scientists better not identify data trends and try to draw conclusions from them - but Parker can make any correlations he/she wants - and draw conclusions from them? Even when the correlation there is really no correlation!! Read this article on the AMO and see if the AMO can be twisted around to be causal in terms of the recent 30 year trend of Arctic ice melt. http://icecap.us/...clel.pdf

Let me highlight a pertinent extract from the article - "Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation index went negative or cool in January 2009" Oh right - the AMO is causing the Arctic ice to melt - Jeesh is gets tiresome with all the idiocy Parker puts out.

"Remember, dir called me an idiot instead of doing a modicum of research"

So Parker - is trying to make the argument that reduction in Arctic sea ice is cause by a warming AMO. So here is a chart of the sea ice over the past 30 years http://nsidc.org/...ires.png Parker did not like that graph - which is from the National Sea Ice Data Center - so here is a different one - gives you the same trend - http://thinkprogr...ontinue/ and here is a chart of the AMO http://en.wikiped...sent.svg Guess what? There is no correlation. For half the time - AMO is negative - the other half AMO is positive - and the ice record is a pretty straight slope down. For the record - I did not call Parker an idiot - I said Parker puts out a lot of idiocy.

"1) A better anomaly graph:" The fact is that no matter which graph you want to cherry pick from - Arctic sea ice has been on a steady downward trend since at least the beginning of satellite data. During this time - the AMO has been both positive and negative. Parker's thesis is fundamentally flawed - but he/she keeps flapping his/her stupid lip - and making a total fool of himself/herself. The scientists believe that the AMO does have an influence on the ice situation - but it is not the primary driver of ice loss. Here is a good article that discusses the situation - which is in line with several other sites and articles I have read. http://www.climat...-season/ The authors ascribe about 30 percent of the changes to natural trends such as the AMO. Bottom line - Parker is again wrong - but too much to hope for any recognition of this fact. Dunning Kruger at it's worst.

So, are you saying that you know enough to say that the AMO is independent of climate or weather?

Are you saying you know enough to say it is the driver and is not driven?

Not that the AMO argument is valid in this situation, but it seems to me that you are saying that you understand the AMO well enough to determine it is independt of on-going climate change (human induced or not).

Over the instrumental period (since the 1850s), North Atlantic SSTs show a 65 to 75 year variation (0.4°C range), with a warm phase during 1930 to 1960 and cool phases during 1905 to 1925 and 1970 to 1990 (Schlesinger and Ramankutty, 1994), and this feature has been termed the AMO (Kerr, 2000)"

Similar oscillations in a 60- to 110-year band are seen in North Atlantic palaeoclimatic reconstructions through the last four centuries (Delworth and Mann, 2000; Gray et al., 2004)"

"It appears scientists at Los Alamos are also deniers ..." Blah blah blah blah blah - you never shut up. Again - in the 40 years or so since satellite data began - the AMO has been positive, and it has been negative. During that same time period - Arctic ice has gone down, down, down, down, down. So your little pet theory is false - you are wrong - you either know it - and keep clap trapping, or you don't know it - I am not sure which is the saddest scenario.

To your point thermodynamics - Here is some real science on AMO. http://tamino.wor.../30/amo/ An interesting quote - "Therefore global warming is the cause, not the effect, of much of the variation in the AMO."

What NP does not seem to understand is that correlation is not a definition of causality. You have to do specific testing to be able to relate causality, even between correlated parameters. It must be his lack of a scientific background that keeps him from understanding. NP, would you care to enlighten us on how you can see correlation as causality?

"It appears scientists at Los Alamos are also deniers ..." Blah blah blah blah blah - you never shut up. Again - in the 40 years or so since satellite data began - the AMO has been positive, and it has been negative. During that same time period - Arctic ice has gone down, down, down, down, down.

"As for NP, he is just not capable of learning." I thought it might be fun to try a little experiment. If we repeat the facts many times over - is it possible that NP will eventually get the point? My vote is no - but stranger things may have happened. One more try - correlation does not equal causation - the current thinking - with lots of supporting science is that the AMO is more caused by global warming than it is a driver of global warming, and finally - the AMO has been both positive, and negative - while the ice melt has continued relentlessly - so this proves the idea that the AMO is a driver of ice melt is false... Of course - the next article mentioning climate will immediately be spammed by NP - he/she has no shame.....

"You don't think sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic have anything to do with ice melting in the summer?" Of course they do - show me where anyone has said they do not. The point is that the relationship is complex - involving ocean temps, atmospheric temps, ocean currents, weather patterns, etc. etc. To make stupid statements like "when the AMO turns negative, the ice will return" just shows how uneducated you are. The bottom line is that the Arctic ice is melting faster than the scientists expected it would melt - the whoe system is incredibly complex - and dismissing their concerns with simplistic made up rubbish just shows you up to be a know nothing.

Unlike religions, science does not spring fully-grown from someone's forehead. You make a model using elements that appear to be relevant. If the model works (makes accurate predictions), fine. If it doesn't work, you modify it. Repeat until you have something that does work. Sometimes, a person comes alone that has a different take on the problem, that works much better. So science ditches epicycles and Newton's Laws take over. Until the next level of instrumentation provides data that doesn't fit.

That's not Science, that's picking and choosing what you want to be relevant or what you are motivated to say is evident. Real science takes into account all possible interactions, no matter how small. This is why so many of us laugh at this AGW cult, and articles such as this. You created this fancy model and sold it to the UN, now you expect the rest of us to not question it. Questioning something is not being a skeptic, it's being a Scientist.

"You don't think sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic have anything to do with ice melting in the summer?" Of course they do - show me where anyone has said they do not. The point is that the relationship is complex - involving ocean temps, atmospheric temps, ocean currents, weather patterns, etc. etc. To make stupid statements like "when the AMO turns negative, the ice will return" just shows how uneducated you are. The bottom line is that the Arctic ice is melting faster than the scientists expected it would melt - the whoe system is incredibly complex - and dismissing their concerns with simplistic made up rubbish just shows you up to be a know nothing.

When the AMO goes negative the ice will return as it has before several times in the last 150 years. The ice also shrunk several times when the AMO went positive.

What kind of anti-science denier pretends massive cycles like the AMO have no effect?

"What kind of anti-science denier pretends massive cycles like the AMO have no effect?"

Please show exactly where anyone has said the AMO has no effect. What kind of anti-science denier takes a correlation - and immediately assumes causation. Oh right - that would be an uneducated NotParker kind of anti-science denier. Again - the AMO has been both positive and negative - during the same time period as the ice extent has gone down, down, down, down - so it would be an uneducated anti-science denier like NotParker who would concluded that the AMO is the driver of ice melt......

What kind of anti-science denier pretends massive cycles like the AMO have no effect?

Science does know that the AMO effects Arctic ice. In a limited way. You cannot pin cause/effect 100% to one variable.

"The method used here shows that for the period 1979–2010, 0.5–3.1%/decade of the observed decline of 10.1%/decade is associated with the natural cycle of the AMO, consistent with Kay et al (2011). During this period the AMO has moved from a negative phase, associated with anomalously cold North Atlantic SSTs, to a positive phase, associated with anomalously warm SSTs. The effect of the AMO over the extended observational period 1953–2010 is much smaller since the record both begins and ends in a negative AMO state. This suggests that despite increased observational uncertainty in the pre-satellite era, the trend in SIE over this longer period is more likely to be representative of the anthropogenically forced component."

You will be extra-humiliated when the AMO goes negative and ice breaks all maximum records.

You're stuck in a do-loop again Parky. I repeat..Science does know that the AMO effects Arctic ice. In a limited way. You cannot pin cause/effect 100% to one variable. "The method used here shows that for the period 1979–2010, 0.5–3.1%/decade of the observed decline of 10.1%/decade is associated with the natural cycle of the AMO, consistent with Kay et al (2011). During this period the AMO has moved from a negative phase, associated with anomalously cold North Atlantic SSTs, to a positive phase, associated with anomalously warm SSTs. The effect of the AMO over the extended observational period 1953–2010 is much smaller since the record both begins and ends in a negative AMO state. This suggests that despite increased observational uncertainty in the pre-satellite era, the trend in SIE over this longer period is more likely to be representative of the ANTHROPOGENICALLY forced component.

What kind of person pretends warmer sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic caused by the AMO have no effect?

Same kind of stupid person that finds correlation - and immediately jumps to causation. Being that I have never claimed the AMO has "no effect" - and I have pointed that out repeatedly - NotParker is deserving of scorn and disdain - for repeatedly making claims that are stupid. Read runrig's post above. Runrig gets it - Parker is not capable of understanding a very basic point - but continues to flap his stupid lip thoughtlessly anyway.

"Questioning something is not being a skeptic, it's being a Scientist." Agreed - but healthy questioning does not give you the right to make claims - without providing solid reasoning for those claims. There are thousands of scientists across the globe taking ice cores; studying fossil records; studying proxy data; studying the climate from every angle they can come up with. Just because you do not like their science - does not automatically give you the right to know better. There is such a thing as consensus in science. It is the consensus that the earth is around 4.54 billion years old. If you want to disagree with that consensus - you better have some good data to back up your case. Sorry - stating your opinion as scientific fact does not constitute good science...

So the rationalization of the day is 'don't worry about the sea ice extent - it is just low this year because of a freak cyclone - no long term pattern going on here' Talk about confirmation bias. Talk about unwillingness to see the wood for the trees. Look at the long term data trend graph on this page. http://thinkprogr...ontinue/

1979 - 16 million cubic kilometers. 2012 - 3.6 cubic kilometers. Oh - that's right - it's just the cylcone of 2012 - everything will be back to normal next year.

Again, you're thinking regionally and extrapolating regional trends to global proportions. The truth is global warming has less to do with this than you think. In the global temperature context of the past 11 years, so far, this is one of the coolest.

So, are you suggesting more ice melts when it's cooler? Obviously, there's more to it.

But that the AGW cult in a nutshell. One variable. CO2. Pretend the AMO and PDO and ENSO don't affect climate and haven't effected climate for 1000s of years.

Currently and for several decades CO2 hasn't been a variable. It has been increasing.As my last post demonstrated, science doesn't ignore the AMO, PDO, Solar, Milankovitch or any other embedded cycle in the climate system. The whole point is to untangle them from the ONE variable that is KNOWN to be increasing. To see if that variable is increasing global temps. All the evidence so far is that it is.

Not at all - I am agreeing with you - that temperatures are currently at a plateau - which is very interesting in the light of Arctic ice melt - and as you say - worth watching - but not worthy of panicking - and some of these articles have had some over the top rhetoric that I think hurts the authors. However - my push back is against the Parkers of the world who are trying to say things like - Arctic ice melt is due to the AMO - and I think they are jumping to all kinds of rationalizations to explain things that at this point we may not have enough data to fully understand.

Not at all - I am agreeing with you - that temperatures are currently at a plateau - which is very interesting in the light of Arctic ice melt - and as you say - worth watching - but not worthy of panicking - and some of these articles have had some over the top rhetoric that I think hurts the authors. However - my push back is against the Parkers of the world who are trying to say things like - Arctic ice melt is due to the AMO - and I think they are jumping to all kinds of rationalizations to explain things that at this point we may not have enough data to fully understand.

Okay, I can generally accept that. But I would add that I don't believe rationalizing the data, from either camp's perspective, is constructive.

But that the AGW cult in a nutshell. One variable. CO2. Pretend the AMO and PDO and ENSO don't affect climate and haven't effected climate for 1000s of years.

Currently and for several decades CO2 hasn't been a variable. It has been increasing.As my last post demonstrated, science doesn't ignore the AMO, PDO, Solar, Milankovitch or any other embedded cycle in the climate system. The whole point is to untangle them from the ONE variable that is KNOWN to be increasing.

The AMO was increasing since 1996. Bright sunshine increased a lot from the early 1990s to the early 2000s and then China's coal usage changed that.

You have to convince me that CO2 was the only variable that changed, and explain why CO2 kept increasing and temperatures stopped increasing.

"But I would add that I don't believe rationalizing the data, from either camp's perspective, is constructive."

It is sad that we even have to talk in terms of camps. Why not just let the science take us where it takes us. I agree that much of the over the top hyperbolae is not helpful - and can invite push back when the predictions are beyond where the data can reasonably take us. Sadly the whole issue has become politicized, and hijacked by people with a political agenda (on all sides). But the science is still the science - and I personally trust the scientific process. My big beef is with the anti science neanderthals like Parker - who insist on spamming a science web site with rubbish - and thinking it is OK to just make up facts - without any basis for those facts. Example - "when the AMO turns negative - the ice will return."

This is a prime example of how the abilty to use scientific method to learn about climate has been lost due to the emotional need blame carbon dioxide before a study is even started so the result is a conclusion that is inaccurate and biased. Even with only a 100 watt per square mile increase in solar energy hitting the earth it equals a megawatt per 10,000 square miles and yet there is never any mention of solar output in these climate studies or how it affects temperature.

I agree with this in principle, so long as the science is sound. The problem is, all too often the science is not sound.

Just recently, Phys.org published a report about a recent peer reviewed paper, published in a prestigious journal, wherein two climate scientists claimed the sea level rise was accelerating as a result of Antarctic ice melt. Well, any fool can easily verify this claim is false, ergo the "science" is false. And keep in mind, the many scientists and journal editors and subsequent reporting entities involved were equally guilty of passing off this bad science.

And that's just one case. The examples are veritably boundless (without even considering the e-mail scandals).

Sadly the whole issue has become politicized, and hijacked by people with a political agenda (on all sides). But the science is still the science - and I personally trust the scientific process.

As you just admitted, concerning this issue, the process has been hijacked. Ergo the "science" is not necessarily THE science. Why would you trust anything coming from so many "hijacked" and "politicized" sources?

As we've agreed, we're in a global temperature plateau. Where are the science sources studying and discussing this obvious climate condition? Sadly, they're dominantly ignoring it, or worse, trying to conceal it or rationalize it away.

Often, prestigious science sources continue to spout false phrases like "continued global warming" or even "accelerating global warming." Why is there such a disregard for the facts?

My big beef is with the anti science neanderthals like Parker - who insist on spamming a science web site with rubbish - and thinking it is OK to just make up facts - without any basis for those facts.

As I've discussed above, this "making up the facts" currently appears to dominate the "science" side of the argument too. And I've found many of NP's references to be interesting and elucidating. However, I agree there's little value in justifying a regional weather condition. Sadly though, this too appears to come most strongly from the "science" side.

That is, I think skeptics like NP are drawn into these regional weather arguments by the the GW proponents proclaiming nonsense headlines and claims concerning regional weather conditions like: "'Planetary emergency' due to Arctic melt, experts warn."

"Yes, this is annoying, but is it any more annoying than the ridiculous proclamations touted by the GW proponents?"

Yes it is. As a proponent of science - I support the process of science. This by necessity is a group process. I cannot personally study every area of science. I cannot be an expert on DNA, quantum particles, superconductivity, the HIV virus etc. etc. So we have a process. Millions of scientists across the globe - all specializing in different areas. All contributing to the body of science. So consensus currently is that earth is 4.54 billion years old. I have no basis for disagreeing with that number. It is the result of millions of hours of science. Physorg reports on scientific research. I read physorg to stay as informed as I can about the research being done by these millions of scientists. If I decide that I know better than all of these scientists - and that there process is stupid - to be honest I am an arrogant prick. Now it is fine to be an cont.

arrogant prick. That is Parker's right. What frustrates me is his/her need to spam physorg with rubbish. It is rubbish for me to make up facts - and then claim that I know the earth is not 4.5 billion years old. So where is the line between healthy enquiry, and rubbish? For me - that line is crossed when I decide to disagree with every article on a particular subject - and proclaim myself the resident expert on that subject. It would be like me getting on to a board about oncology, and claiming that every study related to cancer is flawed, the scientists are all trying to game the system, and that I know better than all of the medical researchers running all of the studies. I am entitled to believe that if I wish - but I think it would be ignorant of me to spam oncology web sites with my own personal theories about how to cure cancer with crystal energy therapy. Bottom line for me - if you don't believe in the process of science - leave us alone....

So where is the line between healthy enquiry, and rubbish? For me - that line is crossed when I decide to disagree with every article on a particular subject - and proclaim myself the resident expert on that subject.

Again, in principle, I don't disagree. But I see this kind of closed-minded confirmation bias coming from both sides. And since the AGW proponents are claiming the consensus of science, I think it's fair the standard applied should be higher.

A case in point:

The science shows the temperatures plateaued as much as 15 years ago. Save you, who among the AGW proponents has apparently accepted the data?

Case two:

The science shows arctic ice area is currently low. NotParker has apparently accepted this data. That he's trying to rationalize a reason is trivial. The point is, he's arguing from a stance of having accepted the data.

Frankly, I feel the AGW proponents failure is significantly more conspicuous and irresponsible.

Bottom line for me - if you don't believe in the process of science - leave us alone....

Science, even the "process of science," is not a belief system. By its very nature, science is a system of doubt. Testing the credibility of the science is very important, so criticism is inherent to the process.

Sure, much of the criticism may fail the credibility test itself. But that's all part of the process.

Ergo, you're essentially proclaiming you dislike someone for engaging in the "process of science."

Perhaps you think there should be a credibility standard? How would you determine such a standard? Who do we exclude? Even an uneducated amateur can change the world.

"We have shown that there is an evident causal decouplingbetween total solar irradiance and global temperature in recentperiods. Our work permits us to fix the 1960s as the time of theloss of importance of solar influence on temperature. At thesame time greenhouse gases total radiative forcing has showna strong Granger causal link with temperature since the 1940sup to the present day.Our results obviously suggest the need for furtherresearch to investigate in greater depth the causes of thisSun-temperature decoupling, but, at the same time, theyappear as a clear contribution to the debate on the causes ofrecent global warming."

"That he's trying to rationalize a reason is trivial" No it is not. By trying to 'rationalize' a reason - he is demonstrating that he does not understand how science works - but he is happy to spam a science web site with one individuals rationalizations (I use the term rubbish). I have a friend who is a research microbiologist. He studies genetic developments in staphylococcus. His work is incredibly detailed. As a non scientist - I would be an arrogant prick to try to argue with him about details of his work. I would be especially arrogant if I tried arguing that all microbiologists were gaming the system - and engaged in bad science. Microbiologists are doing science - studying things to try to understand them. Why do you have to divide the world into AGW proponents and opponents. Why not take the same approach as I do with my friend - respect his area of expertise - and learn from him when he explains stuff?

"Ergo, you're essentially proclaiming you dislike someone for engaging in the "process of science." I don't believe that taking pot shots at scientists - when you do not have their level of knowledge and experience is good science - I believe it is rubbish. Ergo - I am arguing that I support good science - not ill informed rubbish.

I would be an arrogant prick to try to argue with him about details of his work. I would be especially arrogant if I tried arguing that all microbiologists were gaming the system - and engaged in bad science.

Sure, but microbiologists haven't been known to use popular media to instigate irrational panic in the populace.

Why do you have to divide the world into AGW proponents and opponents.

As you know, I'm more the fence sitter. I'm only making an observation, I'm not making the division.

Why not take the same approach as I do with my friend - respect his area of expertise - and learn from him when he explains stuff?

It should be that simple. But as you've observed: "Sadly the whole issue has become politicized, and hijacked by people with a political agenda (on all sides)."

So the cat is out of the bag, the cookies have crumbled, and the cards are on the table. I don't think it's possible to put right the trust, which has been broken.

"Well, why do you feel you're particularly qualified to tell the difference?" Am I personally qualified to evaluate the age of the earth? NO. Am I personally qualified to evaluate the complex process of evolution? No. But I believe in evolution. Not because of my personal qualifications or knowledge, but because tens of thousands of scientists have studied the issue, and that is current consensus. Many scientists acted unethically by manipulating data on experiments regarding smoking. Do I trust my doctor? yes. Has the medical profession harmed me personally with bias science? yes. But I still go the the doctor. Perhaps we disagree on the definition of science. I am talking about the collective process - whereby highly trained individuals develop hypotheses, and then test them against data to advance our understanding of the universe. The system is self correcting. Look at the smoking example. Posting comments on a web site is not science.

"I don't think it's possible to put right the trust, which has been broken." Obviously there is an individual component to that issue, and a collective one. I have no problem trusting the process of science (as defined above), even though I know individual scientists can be dishonest, or bias. I believe the process basically works - my cell phone works - and that is an example of the progress that science gives us. Collectively - I feel there is a lot of manipulation by political and media groups - as well as bloggers like Parker and WUWT. Climate is by it's nature a political issue. Some scientists have become media celebrities. Here in the U.S. - Fox News has embarked on a campaign against alternative energy and electric cars. That does not change the science of batteries - but the funding of research. The people taking ice cores - are still taking ice cores - and if they lie - sooner or later they get caught - and dealt with by science.

Sure, but microbiologists haven't been known to use popular media to instigate irrational panic in the populace.

I don't think it's possible to put right the trust, which has been broken.

I'm afraid as far as the media goes there's no winning. They have an agenda to sell the news and never let the truth get in the way of a good story. I have personal experience of this dealing with them (papers, TV, radio) in my last few years as a forecaster. The weather/climate is a particular fascination with them, at least in the UK. and nothing sells better than hyperbole. Climate scientists may have been naive, at least at the outset, in not realising they would jump on the more extreme scenarios and push them. Once things had become politicised, then of course the polarization made it worse with lobby groups (both sides) slinging mud.

runrig - I completely agree with your post (sadly). Over here in the Sates - we also have the problem of the left right divide. The politics is very divisive - and there is an incendiary group on the right that feeds off conspiracy theories, and getting people whipped up about the erosion of their rights (an issue I actually agree with) - but I don't see it as left vs. right - as much as I see it as a tendency for government to perpetuate itself by growing (left or right leaning government). This group has latched on to climate change as a vanguard issue that they can get people whipped up about. So the blogosphere, and talk radio goes nuts over the evil scientists who are trying to take over your life. Sadly our media is very poor at presenting data - and like you say - enjoys pushing the hyperbole to sell stories.

Well, why do you feel you're particularly qualified to tell the difference?

Am I personally qualified to evaluate the age of the earth? NO. Am I personally qualified to evaluate the complex process of evolution? No. But I believe in evolution. Not because of my personal qualifications or knowledge, but because tens of thousands of scientists have studied the issue, and that is current consensus.

Pardon me if I get it wrong, but it appears what you're saying here is, you're not qualified?

The people taking ice cores - are still taking ice cores - and if they lie - sooner or later they get caught - and dealt with by science.

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to suggest anyone is intentionally lying, but rather there appears to be a built in bias. That is, scientists appear to be looking for signs of global warming, instead of just studying the climate.

No one has been denying that the cyclone was one of many contributors to the low ice this year. Most of us expect the ice to recover some (one year ice) over the winter and next year's melt will, probably, not be as severe as this years. However, WHAT PRODUCED THE CYCLONE? Why was this the lowest ice cover on record? What direction is the anomaly going? What do the trends look like?

And, no, just because the ice is of greater extent next year it does not mean the globe is cooling!! We put up with this since the last great low. We will hear the carping again.

You said that cyclones were unusual and that the cyclone was what pushed the level of ice down this year. Now you are saying there were 18,000 between 1948 and 2002. How does that bolster your claim that the cyclone did it?

"Pardon me if I get it wrong, but it appears what you're saying here is, you're not qualified?"

Correct - unlike others on this board - I recognize that I don't have the depth of knowledge or training to call a whole area of science - bad science. As someone not trained as a climate scientist - that would be arrogant of me - do you agree? Now - how do I know the dumb shit that Parker puts out is nonsense? Well - when one person feels that they individually have the largess to criticize and refute every article on a science web site that mentions the term climate - I feel that qualifies them as an arrogant prick. Go back to the age of the earth example. I do not have the training etc. to evaluate research papers that talk about radiometric dating. But if one person single handedly refuted every article published on radiometric dating - even though they were not a trained scientist - that would disqualify their opinion for me. Do you see the difference here?

djr: You said: "Now - how do I know the dumb shit that Parker puts out is nonsense?" You then go on to discuss attacks on an entier area of science by someone who can't know it all. I go at the question in a simpler manner. When he makes statements that can be shown to be wrong in High School chemistry or a first course in statistics, he automatically strikes the "dumb shit" gong for all of us to notice.

unlike others on this board - I recognize that I don't have the depth of knowledge or training to call a whole area of science - bad science. As someone not trained as a climate scientist - that would be arrogant of me - do you agree?

This is a personal and subjective question you'll have to answer for yourself, as I don't know you well enough to present a qualified opinion.

Now - how do I know the dumb shit that Parker puts out is nonsense? Well - when one person feels that they individually have the largess to criticize and refute every article on a science web site that mentions the term climate - I feel that qualifies them as an arrogant prick.

Your answer does not address your question.

if one person single handedly refuted every article published on radiometric dating - even though they were not a trained scientist - that would disqualify their opinion for me.

"Objectivity in science is a value that informs how science is practiced and how scientific truths are created. It is the idea that scientists, in attempting to uncover truths about the natural world, must aspire to eliminate personal biases, a priori commitments, emotional involvement, etc."

"I don't know you well enough to present a qualified opinion" you don't have to - I gave you the relevant detail - I am not a trained climate scientist - therefore in my view - it would make any one in my position arrogant to challenge a whole field of science. Again (from other thread) - it seems like a double standard - scientists must conform to this high level of scientific behavior - but untrained people can criticize them - even if they really don't know what they are talking about.

May I suggest a more objective approach?

Now you want to get in to a discussion of objectivity! Are you suggesting that I can be objective? I am a person - that makes me subjective.

You said that cyclones were unusual and that the cyclone was what pushed the level of ice down this year. Now you are saying there were 18,000 between 1948 and 2002. How does that bolster your claim that the cyclone did it?

The cyclone did it. Period. Arctic Sea Ice was 220,000 sq km above 2007 when the cyclone hit and before the cyclone ended 2012 ice was less than 2007.

What I was getting at was the claim that cyclones are rare or unusual or caused by AGW.

"The cyclone did it. Period. Arctic Sea Ice was 220,000 sq km above 2007 when the cyclone hit and before the cyclone ended 2012 ice was less than 2007"

Yep - correlation equals causation yet again. I think we covered that in the first class of my psychology statistics class. Probably the cyclone caused the Antarctic ice to hit it's new record. Before the cyclone it was not at a record. After the cyclone it was at a record - ergo - the cyclone cause the Antarctic ice to grow. Jeeeeeesh...

"The cyclone did it. Period. Arctic Sea Ice was 220,000 sq km above 2007 when the cyclone hit and before the cyclone ended 2012 ice was less than 2007"

Yep - correlation equals causation yet again.

You are kind of thick.

"Reuters - Sept. 21 – "NASA says a powerful cyclone formed off the coast of Alaska in early August and moved toward the center of the Arctic ocean, weakening the already thin sea ice as it went.

A large section North of the Chukchi Sea was cut off by the churning storm and pushed south to warmer waters where it melted."

"Multiple peer-reviewed studies have shown that the 2007 low point in Arctic ice of the modern satellite era was due to high pressure days, unusual winds and ocean currents. In 2012, an analysis showed 'High Arctic Summers Have Been Colder Than Normal 12 Years In A Row'

'Every summer since the year 2000 has had below normal temperatures north of 80N'"

"You are kind of thick." Maybe - but I passed my intro to statistics class - and I don't make up stupid shit - and try to pretend I am a climate scientist. Here is the short version for NP the climate clown. Here is a graph of the ice extent for 2012 - http://nsidc.org/...ies2.png

The recent arctic cyclone hit on about August 4th.

Did you happen to notice on the graph referenced above - that the blue line representing 2012 - that is the bottom line - if you are color blind as well as stupid - is below the 2007 line from the beginning of June all the way through today.... Oh yeah - it was the cyclone that caused the ice to melt. Good lord..........

it would make any one in my position arrogant to challenge a whole field of science.

Following this logic:

I'm not a professional culinary expert, therefore should I not challenge the quality of the food I eat?

I'm not a professional actor, director, or producer, therefore should I not challenge the quality of the movies I see?

I'm not a professional politician, therefore should I not challenge the qualities of the candidates?

I'm not a professional athlete...

Being a professional, and understanding the quality of products and services, do not necessarily correlate.

Again - it seems like a double standard - scientists must conform to this high level of scientific behavior - but untrained people can criticize them - even if they really don't know what they are talking about.

Most of these scientists work for public institutions. Ergo, they are predominately our employees. If they can't express themselves well to their employers, whose fault is that?

In regard to the statements in the original article about the models not handling this sort of thing very well:

It's the goldilocks problem. There are models that do a good job on small scales, and there are models that do a good job on large scales, but we don't have any that do a very good job at medium scales yet.

I don't think the problem is that they don't understand it. I think it's just a problem of fitting it all into one package. To predict something like El Nino, for example, it would take a model with the quality of a local weather forcast model, but able to run more than 6 months ahead for the whole planet. It would probably take longer for the model to run on the computer than the time you were trying to predict ahead.

So, the compromise is to simplify certain aspects to the point that they are "in the ballpark" but you won't get specifics like exact ice loss in a given year. It looks like they are getting the general trend right on a decade scale though.

NSIDC does not predict that. The thick multi-year ice will take much longer than 20 years to melt, even at the current rate. You must understand that there's a difference between pack ice and the main body of the ice. Most of the summer melt is just pack ice. The main body of multi-year ice is much more stubborn than the pack ice. Even if ALL the pack ice were to melt in a given year (which has not happened yet) the thicker ice would persist for a long time. It was actually colder in the arctic this year than it was in 2007, so it's possible that although the storm broke apart the pack ice prematurely, the loss of multi-year ice may not have been very bad this year.

As for sever winter weather:

If they are able to predict seasonal weather for any region, I'll be amazed. They have a terrible track record on that. Anyone can say "there's going to be severe weather somewhere this winter". Duh. That's not a prediction.

I'm not a professional culinary expert, therefore should I not challenge the quality of the food I eat?

That you do not see that questioning a body of science (for example the science of evolution) is a different process than evaluating the quality of the hamburger you eat at a local restaurant is very surprising to me. I do not see them in any way as analogous. I think that our world views are sufficiently disparate - that we cannot but talk past each other. I guess I would wish you luck in writing your critique of quantum physics - whether you have the training to do so or not.

"NSIDC tends to guess low because they get more grant money that way."

Or could be their data does not fit your narrative - so you rationalize a reason to discount the data. I would also say that looking at all three of the graphs we have been comparing - there is really no substantive difference. The fact is the Arctic ice extent has been on a downward trend for the last 30 years. Perhaps that is not long enough to make a determination in terms of global warming - but it is the data we have. Your constant rationalizations and cherry picking of data to support your own narrative are totally transparent.

I think that our world views are sufficiently disparate - that we cannot but talk past each other.

I find your attitude interesting, particularly in light of your acceptance that global temperatures have essentially stalled. Surely you cannot be unaware this admission, alone, generally puts you at odds with the "whole field" of accepted climate science.

"You source of information is flawed" As previously stated - if you look at all 4 of those graphs - they are in very close agreement. The essential point is that the Arctic sea ice is in decline - and has been for many decades - this is of concern. You want to spend your life picking through data - and selecting the data that fits your narrative - rather than stepping back and looking at the big picture - have at it. If you want to believe that the cyclone caused the ice to melt - it was nothing to do with a long term warming trend - have at it. The next few years/decades will be interesting....

Surely you cannot be unaware this admission, alone, generally puts you at odds with the "whole field" of accepted climate science.

I am not at odds with the "whole field" of accepted climate science. I can read a graph as well as the next person. Does a temperature plateau mean that global warming has stopped? No - there are other factors (ice data; deep ocean temperature; aerosol levels). There have been plateaus in the past. What will next year bring? The fact that you did not acknowledge the point that critiquing a whole field of science is in no way comparable to evaluating a hamburger - shows how we talk past each other. At this point I am good waiting to see what next year brings.

The ice extent was below the 2007 level for June, July, Aug, and Sept. The storm hit early in August. Your logic is flawed

What logic is flawed?

I simply pointed out the fact that we managed to hit a new record low extent, but the temperature was cooler. Extent is different than thickness of the multi-year ice. The loss of multi-year ice is balanced against winter deposition of new snow/ice. With cooler temperatures, the multi-year ice may have had less net loss this year than it did in 2007.

Does a temperature plateau mean that global warming has stopped? No..

I agree with you. It does not mean much of anything. The "plateau" has only been for about 10 years. 30 years is the generally accepted minimum time frame to avoid spurrious trends caused by short term natural variability. If the plateau continues for another 20 years, then it "might" mean something, but could still just be natural variation hiding a real trend. I prefer 50 years, but that's just me.

Another thing that is seldom discussed here is weighting of the data. I think it is fair to say that not all increases in temperature are equal. Increases in SST, for example, should have a much larger impact than land temperature increase. A straight global average is a simplistic way to look at it, to the point of being naive. Anyone with a more mature understanding of the science will look at regional trends. For example, the arctic region's temperatures have certainly not shown any kind of plateau. Another reason I like regional breakdowns is because it is easier to judge the quality and length of record by region. Gloabl averages tend to hide geographic data gaps and differences in quality of record keeping.

I think it is also important to look at winter versus summer, as well as changes in daily high and nightly low temperatures.

"What logic is flawed?" Sorry - I thought you were arguing that the temperatures were colder - but the ice loss this year was caused by the cyclone - and would not have happened if it were not for the cyclone. I was reading too fast. Thanks.

So you agree the 1979 to 1998 warming was spurious because it only lasted 19 years

Like I said, I prefer 50 years as a MINIMUM time span. We have major cycles like PDO, AMO and AO, which can take as long as 20 years to go through one cycle (from peak to peak). Each of those interact with each other in ways we don't fully understand yet (that's why we can't predict whether the US or Europe will have a mild or severe winter right now). To get a time span which is truely representative of a global trend, don't you need to make sure you aren't starting on a peak and ending on a valley (or the other way around) in regard to the net result of all the multi-decade cycles?

If what I just suggested makes sense, then 20 years is barely enough to form a single data point, and maybe not enven that. You can't derive a slope from one point.

I think there's plenty of evidence that the US and EU have both warmed a lot since 200 years ago. Even if you don't trust all of the emperical data, there's boatloads of anctedotal evidence. For example, I remember lakes and ponds freezing enough to play hockey on them EVERY YEAR when I was a kid. Those same lakes and ponds haven't frozen that solid in 20 years now. The Deleware river used to freeze solid 200 years ago, as did New York's harbor. That hasn't happend in the last 150 years. Even the Patomak in DC used to freeze. The same goes for major rivers and harbors in EU.

The question is: what caused it to happen? Some warming obviously happened before human industrialization. New York and DC's harbors stopped freezing over 100 years ago. However, is it possible that those SHOULD be freezing today? Would they be frozen now, if not for human intervention? I don't think you can offer any solid argument against that possibility. The reverse argument is also unsupportab

I thought you were arguing that the temperatures were colder - but the ice loss this year was caused by the cyclone - and would not have happened if it were not for the cyclone. I was reading too fast. Thanks

No problem. Yeah, there would have been a big melt this year either way. In the next few weeks NSIDC should release thier big detailed analysis of the melt season. They said "October" but didn't give a due date on it. They should have an assessment of how much impact the storm had and what other factors led to the record melt.The biggest thing I'm interested in is why the shape of the melt was so different this year. Parts that usually melt didn't and the whole polar ice cap is pushed up against canada. Very odd. Even if it hadn't melted so much, the shape of the melt is just odd.

Here in south carolina, it's hard to imagine that the arctic has already began to freeze back up again this year. It was almost 90 here yesterday.

I think there's plenty of evidence that the US and EU have both warmed a lot since 200 years ago. Even if you don't trust all of the emperical data, there's boatloads of anctedotal evidence. For example, I remember lakes and ponds freezing enough to play hockey on them EVERY YEAR when I was a kid. Those same lakes and ponds haven't frozen that solid in 20 years now.

Spurious. This is an exceedingly rare event, only recorded once in history (1780). The event you're referencing didn't even come close (it was unusually cold and the Hudson froze, but the entire harbor wasn't frozen).